Of course, strictly speaking science is all about just two things: observations (aka "facts") and explanations (aka "hypotheses").
If I see a UFO defying gravity that's an observation, but it does not become fact until it can be very carefully confirmed scientifically.
Explanations begin as brain-storming a list of potential explanations, followed by weeding out the impossible ones and stating others in the form of hypotheses.
A scientific hypothesis is a falsifiable explanation, so the next step is to attempt to falsify it.
Every failed attempt to falsify is called a confirmation and strongly confirmed hypotheses can be accepted as "theories".
Theories are sometimes combined to make what's called a "standard model".
And that's it!
That's all there is in science.
Notice what words are missing: "belief", "faith", "truth", "proof", "doctrine", "creed", "philosophy" -- none of that.
Strictly speaking, every confirmed theory, without exception, can still be falsified if or when new data or better explanations are confirmed.
And that happens all the time -- I've said most real scientists live in hope of someday finding a genuine confirmed anomaly, something which doesn't fit their standard model and may force a rethinking and new hypotheses.
For an example, consider Fred Hoyle's "steady state" cosmology which was thought viable when I was young.
But it's been falsified so many times that Big Bang now, so to speak: reigns supreme.
Still, once in a while you'll see a report of something which doesn't seem to fit the Big Bang model and we have to wonder then if old Fred Hoyle isn't laughing in his grave? ;-)
Point is: none of this is about "truth" or "belief" or "faith", etc.
Strictly speaking, science only accepts a particular theory temporarily, until something better is discovered.
Clear?
But when I ask whether something is true or not, you know exactly what I mean.
Meaning is what’s important, not the symbols used to convey meaning.